Question about #humanRights— Article 20 of the #UDHR¹ states:
“① Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
② No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”
How does that apply in the context of forced banking? If a government forces you to enter the marketplace and register for a bank account, does that qualify as being compelled to belong to an association?
¹UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
#askFedi
Covid showed us that human rights can easily be put on hold without much trouble. I remember the right to peaceful assembly being quite limited.
Covid seems like a bad example because the highest human right is the right to live & the right to healthcare. When multiple human rights are in conflict you can only expect there to be winners and losers. Thus it’s not an example of human rights being put on hold but rather a case of one human right trumping another.
A bad example doesn’t defeat your point, but in this case you’re talking about expectation that human rights violations face enforcement. That’s an interesting discussion for sure but I’m just at the stage of trying to figure out if I’m correctly interpreting Article 20.
State actors view things many individuals and groups use the term rights for as nothing more than privileges that can be granted and rescinded conditionally by those claiming authority over those individuals and groups.
There is plenty of philosophical thought and discussion around the concept of rights, but as with most topics, many seem to have wildly different understandings of the same concept while naïvely assuming everyone is talking about the same thing and understanding it in this same way.
I guess it probably depends on what the alternatives are. Is it possible to opt-out? What are the repercussions for failure to comply?
Forcing a person born on a particular landmass to be documented or jump through any number of other hoops that enroll them in organizations or institutions could also be construed as compelled association, but the courts and governments of the world clearly don’t see it that way.
That gets into the distinction between the legal and the philosophical though, and I don’t claim expertise in either field.
courts and governments of the world clearly don’t see it that way.
It would be nice if I could predict how a court would view it but I have about zero confidence in being able to make that prediction. Often when a case escalates through the court system there is a discussion over what law makers intended when they wrote something. That is what I’m after here. I don’t know if Article 20 ¶2 was written by the UN or drafted by an org that influences the UN. But the question is, how broad was the author’s intent? Were they just thinking about Jewish registries and the like, or essentially all cases where people might be forced to associate to each other? The wording is quite vague (though perhaps rightly so if broad interpretation is the intent).
I think international human rights laws like this are rarely ever enforced & mostly symbolic. Thus I don’t suppose there would be any kind of case law to give clarity on this.
I guess it probably depends on what the alternatives are. Is it possible to opt-out? What are the repercussions for failure to comply?
I wish I could discuss the details of the particular situation at hand but that would be unwise ATM. I will give some other examples though:
-
several countries in Western Europe have banned cash payments above a certain amount (I think roughly €1-5k, depending on the country and residency status). So an unbanked wage earner is essentially forced into a shit-pay scenario IF they are lucky… I’m not sure the gov wouldn’t look at the whole contract value anyway (e.g. a year salary). Obviously a worker could collect payment on a daily basis and easily get below the limit, but the law likely exists to block cash wages & a court would laugh at such an attempt.
-
the city offers public services such as public parking. But the city has recently shut down over-the-counter service and forced everyone to use their website which does not accept cash payment.
Example 2 more closely resembles the situation at hand but the public service involved is much more critically essential than parking.
-
I’m not asking for the sake of argument but out of lack of knowledge and out of curiousity. What government forces a bank account requirement? In my understanding, at least in my country, it’s not required for anything, it’s just a major pain to not have an account.
I don’t quite recall the context I had in mind when I wrote that post 1 year ago, but Belgium (for example) has enacted a law that all suppliers must accept electronic payment. It’s not just shops or b2b situations. It all-encompassing including self-employed freelancers. Even someone who rents part of their home out must give the tenant the option to pay electronically.
Also in Belgium: employees and contractors can only accept cash payment if they happen to work in an industry where that is common. So if you’re not (e.g.) a domestic worker, receiving cash wages is banned. At the same time, no matter what the situation is, a cash transaction can never exceed €3k. Buying a house cannot involve 1 euro of cash, which is strictly banned from all real estate transactions.
Many water and utility companies refuse cash. So if you consider the right to housing to include a right to water and power, then those consumers are being forced to use a bank. But that’s not apparently government force.
That’s funny, this just popped up on my Hot feed. I thought these issues with Lemmy were all resolved.
No issue there… I cross-posted it today to the human rights community (which I did not know about at the time), since my question still stands.
I’d argue that having a bank account makes you a customer, not a member of that bank, but I guess this can be interpreted either way. Where are you forced to register a bank account though?
Europe, where the war on cash is making headway.
There are a dozen or so Youtube videos on Article 20. And it’s a shit-show… mostly just folks reading it aloud. Anyone who further elaborates on it only points out the well-known obvious meaning of ¶1; no ¶2 coverage.
